The Rhetoric and Logic of Mars Colonization.

 What's Hot  2 Responses »
Mar 152011
 

Mars, Our New Home Away From Home?

A Second World?

The Environmental crisis? To which environment do you speak? Marsseemingly has it all figured out, why not move there? No pollution, no war, no hunger or natural disaster, Mars may become the Earth’s home away from home.

It could sustain us, and more importantly it is ours for the taking. Isn’t it?

Perhaps it is time for a new world order to rise. This new world order would not be on this world at all but on the red ball in the sky, the new world. Technological advancements will inevitably be able to make mars inhabitable for humans.
Human curiosity will inevitably lead to colonization efforts on Mars. In the case of Mars there are obvious idealistic pros and very real consequential cons. This decision and the very-real possibility of a neo astrological colonization era, this decision will come down to the rhetoric from your nations leaders, capitalist, and entrepreneurs alike. It will be the effectiveness of this rhetoric that will decided when this uprising will occur, for there is only one way off this planet; money, and lots of it. Mars colonization must be first marketed and sold to the pubic before any action can be made.
The one way ticket; do you buy it?
• Do you think that Earth environment should be repaired before a substantial investment is made on another planet?
• How should the first colonist, after the initial astronauts be decided?
• Should colonization efforts be made by private investments or government initiative?
• What are the most important things to implement on mars before it is inhabitable, given that basic commodities are given: food, water, shelter.
• Who, and how should Mars be claimed by governing forces, and should a new government be made to mock the one on earth?

Before the rhetoric hits, you should answer the questions for yourself, and there is no right or wrong answer.
Consider a logic based Pro and Con list for yourself, information can be found readily online and in many other formats that discuss a hypothetical colonization. Remember to separate logic from persuasive techniques; sometimes the difference is not easily noticeable.
Mars Colonization
Pro Con


Sources:

http://library.thinkquest.org/C003763/index.php?page=mars03

http://www.nss.org/settlement/mars/zubrin-colonize.html

Image:

http://embraceyournerd.blogspot.com/

No glory, for the Climate Satellite Glory

 What's Hot  1 Response »
Mar 042011
 

Glory Satellite Takeoff

A satellite that was supposed to monitor the sun’s effect on climate change and global warning, has for the second time in two years failed to launch. In 2009 the first climate satellite was supposed to make orbit and track the effect of different elements on the current climate. The protective covering of the satellite did not break off so it did not have the secondary thrust required for it to break through the atmosphere and into orbit. The same problem that happened in 2009, happened again in 2011.

Both satellite and rocket are now in the Pacific Ocean, probably not to far away from its predecessor. The satellite, Glory, did not retrieve any information whatsoever.

The rocket type, Taurus XL had been launched nine times before, six of those times successfully. The satellite failure has cost NASA roughly $54 million.

Some of the questions that were supposed to be answered by the satellite were, how much of man made carbon emissions are re-absorbed into the Earth and how much is trapped? And what is the extent of the threat of global warming.

The satellite Glory was supposed to set critics of NASA at ease. NASA has been criticized of spending too much time and money studying other planets and not enough effort into learning about our planet, Earth.

“We have a very weakened Earth observing system just at a time where we need every bit of data that we could possibly get,” says Elisabeth Holland a senior member of the National Center for Atmospheric research.

“The NASA team does the things that are important, not necessarily the things that are easy,” Said NASA Earth Science Director Mike Freilich going on to say The loss of Glory will mostly hurt projections and modeling of future climate change.

NASA is planning to re-launch the global warming satellite again in another two years in 2013. NASA officials say they should be able to fix the problems that have caused the last to attempts to go down by then, although, isn’t that what they said last time? The information the satellite would have given us is crucially important, NASA will stop at nothing until they determine they understand our currently climate situation to the best of their abilities, something they cannot say right now.

Sources:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/24/nasa-satellite-taurus-xl-_n_169425.html

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SCI_GLORY_SATELLITE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-03-04-07-48-04

Commercial Space Travel

 What's Hot  1 Response »
Feb 242011
 

If you have 200,000 dollars, you can book your flight into the last great frontier, space. Anyone is eligible (given you have the cash). Virgin Mobil meets Virgin Galactic in the first commercial space venture ever constructed. The VSS Enterprise can fly, tested in early October the Enterprise proved that it could both detach from the mother ship and land safely in California. If it can propel itself through the atmosphere and back is yet to be determined.  Richard Branson is expecting to shoot people through the earth’s atmosphere to sneak a peek back at the world we call home, next year.

Boeing has been given government grants to produce technology to do the same, yet Virgin Galactic is way ahead of its time. With this first space race, it is imaginable that space tourism may become commonplace in the future as the price of a trip declines steadily.

If this venture is expanded, and we one day have traffic in space, where does this leave our planet? We have enough pollution coming from the ground, and now were blasting it in the sky too.

A report done by Nature.com stated, “emissions from 1,000 private rocket launches a year would remain high in the stratosphere, possibly altering global atmospheric circulation and distributions of ozone,”

Is this threatening cost too much? Or is it like the 200,000 dollar payment, just the price that need be paid for innovation. The engines used currently implement a process that burns hydrocarbons with nitrous oxide. This would leave pollutants in the stratosphere for years and could seriously affect climate change.

Before the industry even takes off the ground, perhaps it is time for them to re-evaluate their “green agenda” Asking if the adventurous space tourism is really worth the worldwide risk it brings. Even the rich will need to come back to earth sometime.

Sources:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/technology/2010/10/12/virgin-galactic-spacecraft-for-tourists-is-a-success-on-test-flight-115875-22627319/

http://www.virgingalactic.com/

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5928560/will_fears_of_climate_change_keep_space.html

Images:

http://www.loveangeles.com/love_angeles/2010/10/bransons-virgin-galactic-completes-first-solo-space-flight.html

http://www.crunchgear.com/tag/virgin-galactic/

NASA’s Space Litter Conundrum

 What's Hot  No Responses »
Feb 032011
 
Space Litter: decommissioned satellites, rocket parts, nuts and bolts and more, forever fly in outer-space.

Space Litter: decommissioned satellites, rocket parts, nuts and bolts and more, forever fly in outer-space.

The human race has left a mark on every setting it has injected itself into.  The most invisible are the toxins released and the effect on other living things. More visible is the litter we trash our planet with. Even on the most remote islands, you will find plastic bottles and bags washing ashore. The litter is not just contained to the ocean, nor the land, or even the sky, not even outer space.

Abandoned satellites, parts of rockets, remnants of failed missions and every experimental piece of equipment we have been blasting into space is cluttering our atmosphere just as waste has disgraced our beaches. As “space junk”, collides with more “space junk” it keeps sending debris flying for eternity in all directions. Lets not forget Isaac Newton’s encounter with an apple: an object in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. There is no gravity in space, so there is no drag, meaning our trash in space will continue in whatever course it was set upon forever, or until it hits something else.

This debris threatens the lives of astronauts in space today, and in the future, for there is a risk space people could be struck by rubbish. If one day Star Trek becomes a reality, while zooming around in space ships, we will still have to swerve to dodge scraps from way-back-when. Just like on earth garbage doesn’t just go away, and unlike earth, we cant bury it in space. So the only way to get rid of it is to collect it, and that technology is not yet available.

From Wired Magazine:

space junk

The solution is not so simple...

February 10, 2009: “ 500 miles over the Siberian tundra, two satellites were cruising through space, each racing along at about 5 miles per second. Iridium 33 was flying north, relaying phone conversations. A long-retired Russian communication outpost called Cosmos 2251 was tumbling east in an uncontrolled orbit. Then they collided. The ferocious impact smashed the satellites into roughly 2,100 pieces. Repercussions on the ground were minimal—perhaps a few dropped calls—but up in the sky, the consequences were serious. The wreckage quickly expanded into a cloud of debris, each shard an orbiting cannonball capable of destroying yet another hunk of high-priced hardware.”

All the little pieces of these satellites have now become like bullets, spears, and massive pieces of scrap metal after an explosion that will never stop flying until it hits something else.

“A 10-centimeter sphere of aluminum would be like 7 kilograms of TNT,” stated a NASA scientist.

This event in 2009 was first proof of a theory known as Kessler Syndrome. Kessler Syndrome states that when two satellites collide, the explosion of debris will increase the possibility of more collisions to occur, and when they do, it goes-on-and-on-and on until earth is encompassed in a chaotic cloud of fast moving crap. The atmosphere should protect the earth itself from any pieces that try to get through, but that would be the end of the space industry, and thus the sky would be the limit.

There goes ESPN and M-TV

Sources:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/8295546/Space-so-full-of-junk-that-a-satellite-collision-could-destroy-communications-on-Earth.html

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/05/ff_space_junk/

http://www.fastcompany.com/1667334/space-debris-usaf-sbss-satellites-rockets-orbit

Images:

http://www.spreadartculture.com/2010/11/26/space-architects/spacedebris/

http://www.classbrain.com/artteensb/publish/space-trash.shtml

http://www.newprophecy.net/2010part3.htm